 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbrain com> schreef in bericht
news:45523a76$1@news.povray.org...
>
> Really? But I'm encouraging people to develop skills that serve no
> marketable purpose whatsoever! Just think of all those budding CG artists
> whose lives I've ruined by leading them to povray instead of Maya!
> Mwahahahahaha!
>
Now, that's evil! Shame on you!!!
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:4552da59$1@news.povray.org...
> Pretty good - the horizon looking strange might also be due to something
> else. In real life you would have quite a lot of spray in the air in such
> a situation that would limit the sight so you would not be able to see
> that far.
Yeah I was thinking of adding a little fog to take care of that but I
haven't got round to it yet :)
--
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
> "Gail Shaw" <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote in message
> news:45515d23@news.povray.org...
> > That's fantastic.
>
> Thank you :)
>
> > You might be able to fix the 'all at the same height' problem if you add a
> > large scale f_rand3d to the function.
>
> I've now added f_spotted and the problem is completely fixed (plus it now
> looks like an even more dramatic ocean!).
>
Firstly, the water is fantastic, really dramatic looking, I guess you could
adjust the size of the rubber ring to make the waves look even larger...
Secondly any chance you can post the improved render.
Sean
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"s.day" <s.d### [at] uelacuk> wrote in message
news:web.455394c7c41de098ffb947b40@news.povray.org...
>
> Secondly any chance you can post the improved render.
Well I was waiting until I let one finish with anti-aliasing turned on!
Trouble is I keep stopping it when it's half done to tweak the wave shapes.
Although I think I'm happy with them now, so I'm chucking a sinking ship in
there to show off the refraction and media effects below the surface. Here's
a taster (without anti-aliasing).
--
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'water2-1.jpg' (158 KB)
Preview of image 'water2-1.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Oooh, those waves look very nice. Much better than I have achieved. Great work!
I'll be keeping an eye out for the code... I hope you will post it.
Kyle
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I'll probably post it when it's finished...
--
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com
"Kyle" <hob### [at] gatenet> wrote in message
news:75k7l29lb4p1uh7tc35g3o99nnh7jjp874@4ax.com...
> Oooh, those waves look very nice. Much better than I have achieved.
> Great work!
>
> I'll be keeping an eye out for the code... I hope you will post it.
>
>
> Kyle
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tek wrote:
> I decided to have a play with ridged_mf. Usually I avoid it because it has
> all those parameters and granite generally looks good enough. Anyway, I came
> up with something rather good!
>
> Render time 6h 36m.
I assume you're using an isosurface? You could probably speed up the
rendertime (by several orders of magnitude, in fact) by first rendering
the pattern as a height field.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ben Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> schreef in bericht
news:45542c96@news.povray.org...
>
> I assume you're using an isosurface? You could probably speed up the
> rendertime (by several orders of magnitude, in fact) by first rendering
> the pattern as a height field.
>
...but then you will miss the overhanging parts...!
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot wrote:
> "Ben Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> schreef in bericht
> news:45542c96@news.povray.org...
>> I assume you're using an isosurface? You could probably speed up the
>> rendertime (by several orders of magnitude, in fact) by first rendering
>> the pattern as a height field.
>>
>
> ...but then you will miss the overhanging parts...!
>
> Thomas
>
>
Were there some? I found it hard to see any in the picture.
Of course, you could use intersections between height fields, and other
such tricks, but that gets... tricky ;)
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ben Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
news:45544d22$1@news.povray.org...
> Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>
>> ...but then you will miss the overhanging parts...!
>
> Were there some? I found it hard to see any in the picture.
The overhanging parts aren't obvious in the first version of this image
(aside from the whole thing leaning left, but that could easily be done with
Skew_Trans on a height field), but if you look at my new post they're much
more visible.
The render time's mostly caused by radiosity (which I've since disabled) and
reflections & refractions. A heightfield would be a big help with those
because it traces very quickly, though the resolution I'd need for this
image would mean a huge pretrace time to generate that heightfield, and a
huge lump of memory to store it!
--
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
